Ranvir Kumar @ Ranvir Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 55425 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-123 Year-2017 Thana- Suryagarha District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Ranvir Kumar @ Ranvir Yadav, S/o Late Jagdish Yadav, resident of VillageNista, Police Station Suryagarha, District- Lakhisarai. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Mukherjee For the Opposite Party/s :

Sri Dashrath Mehta Mr. Lal Muni Sharma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 17-11-2017 At the very outset, Sri Lal Muni Sharma, learned counsel intends to file vakalatnama on behalf of the informant. It may be filed in Registry.

Heard Sri Ajay Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dashrath Mishra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the informant. The petitioner, who is in custody since 26-09-2017 in Suryagarha P.S. Case No. 123 of 2017 registered for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 323, 324, 307, 302, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, has prayed for grant of bail purely on the ground of parity. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by way of referring to Annexure - 2 to the petition i.e. order dated 18-10-2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 41123 of 2017, submits that at least two

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.55425 of 2017(2) dt.17-11-2017 2/2 accused persons, whose cases were even on worst footing than the petitioner, have been granted bail by a Bench of this Court and he submits that petitioner also deserves to be enlarged on bail. He has further argued that in the F.I.R., there is general and omnibus allegation. No specific accusation has been made against the petitioner.

However, on perusal of the F.I.R., it is evident that three named accused persons variously armed with rifle had indiscriminately fired, in which, one person received firm-arm injury and died.

The Court is of the opinion that if in the F.I.R., there is such accusation, at least accused persons may not be enlarged on bail within such short period of custody. I am not in a position to agree with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that other accused persons, whose case was even on worst footing than the petitioner, have been granted bail. The conscious of this Court does not permit to grant bail to such accused.

The prayer for bail stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) anay U T